When even Pat Toomey voted for it, all is apparently lost. If the House passes it, I’m changing my registration, and I would suggest that all conservative Republicans do the same. The GOP speaks French.

6
posted on 01/01/2013 8:46:23 AM PST
by Daveinyork
(."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)

I see the rate correction for the 25/28% brackets and above but if the expiration of the Bush cuts undid the drop of the lowest bracket down to 10% then yes, the Senate let the lowest rate fail back to 15%. This could be hugh and perhaps series.

10
posted on 01/01/2013 8:53:08 AM PST
by NonValueAdded
(If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)

The liberal fantasy that they would like everyone to believe is this: there are several swimming pools, some for people that make less than $50k a year, some for people that make less than $150k a year, (and so on and so on) and some for those awful millionaires. We are going to dip our bucket into the millionaires pool, and spread it out into your pools. See, that's what we call “fairness.”

Here is reality.

There are only two pools. One for those that work, and one for those that don't. Yes, in the pool for those that work one end is deeper and therefor has more water than the other. But when you take a bucket full of water from the deep end (millionaires) and pour it into the shallow end, it all ends up back in the same place anyway.

But when you take a bucket of water from the pool of people that work, and pour it into the pool of people that don't work, ALL of the people in the pool that work have less water.

So if you go to work every week, anytime the government spends more money, it will cost you. Whether you can see or find how it is costing you, it IS costing you. The only people that ‘win’ when the government spends money are the people that do not work at all.

If government spends, and you work, you lose. No matter how it is spun or twisted, or lied about - government spends, you work, you pay. Period.

Well, it may be premature to call this a hike on the lowest tax bracket. It appears the Senate Amendment amends HR 8 which amends underlying tax code. One must trace through all of the changes in the correct order to discern what the new tax structure might be. If I see this correctly, the next step is a Conference Committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of H.R. 8. Then it goes to Obama and you can be sure there will be a Signing Statement.

15
posted on 01/01/2013 9:29:52 AM PST
by NonValueAdded
(If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)

The only way to get near to the monies needed for Obama's spending habits, is to raise taxes on everyone.

It amazes me to no end that even our FR folks who used to understand "Supply Side Economics" or real Adam Smith Economics still make this error. Increased tax rates will not raise nearly the projected revenue and, in fact, if revenue does not DEcrease immediately it will shortly as the economy noses over even further and declines even faster..

The point I was attempting to make is that those Americans, especially those paying little or no taxes, do not understand or care that the only pot large enough to come close to meeting the desires of the greedy has to come from the pockets of the so-called, "middle class."

Even in America, there aren't enough rich people working and being taxed at higher and higher rates that will fulfill the desires of the greedy. Only when the, heretofore, largest group, the working and taxable "middle class" have their taxes raised, can the government come even close to meeting the spending habits of DC, according to the philosophy of Keyensian economists!

the only pot large enough to come close to meeting the desires of the greedy has to come from the pockets of the so-called, "middle class."

It cannot and will not happen. They can increase taxes all they want but they will thereby reduce revenues. They will, however, have a larger and larger percentage of the whole wealth of society as they transfer wealth to the elite through inflation, even as the total wealth of the system declines. The will be a super-elite in a small wealth pond. We will be effectively living at the level of the Moslem countries where wealth is almost totally concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite of rulers in countries that are overall poor. No debt can be paid off by increasing taxes, not in the short term, not in the long term. The government cannot pay off anything by soaking the citizenry. That pot of wealth ISNOTTHERE for the taking unless they do an actual wealth confiscation or expropriation as it is known in the Communist countries.

Keynes was not an economist. He was a fantasist. Did you ever read him? In classes where he is taught his paragraphs are read for the firs line and the conclusion. Everything in between is nonsensical. Most does not cohere as English and meaning can only be assumed or speculated. It reads like a poorly done MIT paper designed to be accepted in prestigious journals then to be jeeringly outed by the authors as a fraud.

Everyone inside the belt way has sold out or bought in to big gov-mint. They are all in it together. They have theirs and they determine what theirs is. Once that is done, they control all. We are subject to the king and his court called congress. All liars, thieves, of the same skin.

Krugman. That is one man whose name seems to say it all. The problem on a governmental level is that all of the "\economists" on the government payroll and most of the "economists" in the liberal think tanks are finance specialists, not economists at all. They got MBAs and think they know Economics, Actually they may have got one survery course in Economics that just superficially described the "systems" that were "out there." Finance men are very good at figuring out how to move money and assets in desired directions but are mostly ignorant of how it all works. Because they are good at making themselves and their employers wealthy they think they know how econơmies can be made to work. Bexause they usually latch on to Keynes whose sole purpose, if he had one, was to justify government by Experts, they are honey to the politicians who then fancy that they can magisterially and efficiently direct economic growth and the flow of assets and wealth to the betterment of Society and their own vaults.

Did you know Reagan had an actual bachelor’s degree in real Economics? He was the only president in recent times to understand the subject. You have to go back to Coolidge and Harding for others. It is a dull subject. Dynamic people, and politicians tend to be dynamic people, don’t have time for boring stuff like that.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.